by Jean Vanier

Insecurity is, I think, at the heart of one of the great human dichotomies: the need for belonging and the need to be oneself, a real person, fully alive. In the fulfillment of the need for belonging, is a certain surrender of the self to the group, the community, the culture that provide a set of received truths. But to go further in the search human fulfillment and inner freedom we need to reflect on the certitudes of the group, even to question them and take the risk of going against the grain.

It is when we act as individuals, allowing our deepest selves to arise, that what I call the principle of insecurity is most evident: we choose to live a certain insecurity and question things held to be true. However, to be insecure in this way is also, I believe, an important quality for the group or community; the things the group holds dear can be a looked at, reflected on, questioned, and deepened, the better to find the truths contained therein. Let us look at this in more detail...

In many countries of the world, the family, the village, and the tribe still remain strong; people feel bonded to one another. This bonding gives security; people know what to do and what to believe. Elders or leaders have a real power and authority. If someone falls sick, they are looked after. But there are disadvantages to such strong bonding. Members of the community sacrifice their individual consciousness and freedom at the altar of security and unity, the altar of bonding. For some, this submission can cause pain, particularly for those who are young and ambitious, who do not want to be enslaved in ancient traditions and in the collective poverty that is embraced by many such communities. The human urge is to liberate ourselves from what we perceive to be oppressive belonging. We want to find freedom but we want to find it within some kind of structure.

Among humankind, the family represents the basic social unit. However, everywhere we look, this basic place of belonging is breaking down. Let me take the country where I live, France, as an example. In Paris, one out of every two marriages ends in divorce and in the rest of France, one out of three goes the same way. Statistics show that everywhere, more and more people are frightened of commitment.

And why is this happening? I believe it is because our Western societies have place the power, rights, and needs of the individual above those of the group. We have developed societies based on the principle of competition; people must work hard in order to succeed. Now, in a certain context, this can be healthy, particularly since a group can stifle both personal consciousness and freedom, as well as the development of one’s gifts and capacities. Competition stretches our capacities but a focus on individual values and rights can push us into a terrible loneliness.

This is a loneliness that can bring some people, especially those who feel ill-equipped to live in the competitive world or who have never truly belonged in a family, to the depths of despair, where they lose their sense of self and of meaning. This is a place of insecurity at its most profound, insecurity in its most negative aspect.

But this loneliness can also cause us to seek out new ways of belonging, in places where we are helped to find a meaning of our lives, places where we may live out an idea, where we may experience a true bonding with others. In the same way, this loneliness can cause us to search for new ways of bringing greater peace and justice to our society, to struggle with and for those who have been downtrodden, so that they may find an equitable place in society. This is a loneliness that will push some to seek new ways of healing the broken and those who cry out in pain; it will push others to seek truth and a new relationship with God.

A society based on the Darwinian "survival of the fittest," where we all fend for ourselves, has serious disadvantages. It promotes a strong, aggressive attitude and the need to win. It can paralyze the development of the heart, prevent healthy cooperation among people, and promote rivalry and enmity. It tends to marginalize those who are weak and even those who reject individualistic principles and want to live in and for a society based on truth and justice for all. In a society that encourages an ethics of economy, of winning, and of power, it is important to be admired. In such a society, an ethics of justice, solidarity, and cooperation, and ethics of the common good, can quickly fade into the background. Individual success is all that matters. How can Western societies encourage the development of personal consciousness, freedom, and creativity and, at the same time, help us to not fall into self-centered attitudes and motivations? How can we orient the development of the individual towards works of justice, the struggle for peace, and helping others to develop their gifts and find their place in society?